clw_uk wrote:It was also a term i came accross in Ajahn Buddhadasa's book "heartwood from the Bodhi Tree" (print version)

Apprently he used it so as to state that he doesnt follow or teach what a certain tradition or school dictates but only what the Buddha himself taught

Which is simply a self-promoting way of saying "I don't teach what tradition teaches but instead teach my own interpretation."

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

I wouldnt say that, i would say it comes from his own personal glimpse of how un-Buddhist practices have crept into Theravada Buddhism, and so shows his resolve to want to get back to Buddhadhamma as the Buddha himself taught it and not what tradition, that has been accumulated over centuries, told him how he should teach it

For example at that time the tradition was not to teach Suññatā to the lay but Ajahn Buddhadasa broke with this and taught Suññatā to lay people, is this not Buddhadhamma?

But of course your free to decide which teachers you feel teach the Buddhadhamma best

clw_uk wrote:I wouldnt say that, i would say it comes from his own personal glimpse of how un-Buddhist practices have crept into Theravada Buddhism, and so shows his resolve to want to get back to Buddhadhamma as the Buddha himself taught it and not what tradition, that has been accumulated over centuries, told him how he should teach it

For example at that time the tradition was not to teach Suññatā to the lay but Ajahn Buddhadasa broke with this and taught Suññatā to lay people, is this not Buddhadhamma?

No, it has nothing to do with Buddhadhamma. Nor does it have anything to do with Theravada. There has never been an "official" Theravada doctrine that suttas can't be taught to lay people. That is just something that certain people in certain cultures decided to do. If one wants to break with that tradition he could just say "I'm breaking with the tradition of not teaching Theravada scripture to lay people. I will teach Theravada scripture to lay people." Then we could see there are Theravadins who teach scriptures and Theravadins who don't.

By rejecting the word "Theravada" and creating a new word "Buddhayana" one is not simply rejecting certain cultural practices but rather one is rejecting an entire body of doctrinal understanding.

No, it has nothing to do with Buddhadhamma. Nor does it have anything to do with Theravada. There has never been an "official" Theravada doctrine that suttas can't be taught to lay people. That is just something that certain people in certain cultures decided to do. If one wants to break with that tradition he could just say "I'm breaking with the tradition of not teaching Theravada scripture to lay people. I will teach Theravada scripture to lay people." Then we could see there are Theravadins who teach scriptures and Theravadins who don't.

By rejecting the word "Theravada" and creating a new word "Buddhayana" one is not simply rejecting certain cultural practices but rather one is rejecting an entire body of doctrinal understanding.

Lord Buddhas teachings and Ajahn Buddhadasa's as well were all connected with Voidness, in truth there is no Theravada, no Mahayana, Vajrayana etc there is only Buddhadhamma, by using the term Buddhayana (i assume) Ajahn Buddhadasa was stating that there is no "Theravada" Buddhism or "Mahayana" Buddhism, there is only Buddhadhamma and so in conventional speak, Buddhayana

Lord Buddha wasnt a Theravadin, a Mahayanist or any other label

What Ajahn Buddhadasa did was get down to the core of Buddhadhamma, that which unifies all the schools and so cant be called "Theravada" or "Mahayana"

In short he focused on what is really important in Buddhism, Dukkha and its quenching, those small handful of leaves

Metta

Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:24 pm, edited 5 times in total.

I wouldnt say that, i would say it comes from his own personal glimpse of how un-Buddhist practices have crept into Theravada Buddhism, and so shows his resolve to want to get back to Buddhadhamma as the Buddha himself taught it and not what tradition, that has been accumulated over centuries, told him how he should teach it

Peter wrote:...That is just something that certain people in certain cultures decided to do...

clw_uk wrote:In short he focused on what is really important in Buddhism, Dukkha and its quenching, those small handful of leaves

Good points here. It should not necessarily be taken as a rejection of the core, but of much of the cultural practices that have crept in. These often involve esoterism (as mentioned in this thread), and folk superstition.

What we have here is a mix-up over the context in which the word tradition is being used. That's all.

clw_uk wrote:Correct, this is all Ajahn Buddhadasa taught, which is why i have never understood why he gets so much flak

In the case of Bhikkhus such as Ajahn Buddhadasa and Ajahn Chah I think that much of the "problem" stems from overinterpretation and oversimplification of what they taught by some of their followers (particularly Western ones) who pull out soundbites without regard for the context.

Yes, I think Buddhadasa is simply stressing the immediate result of kamma here & now as a corrective to the usual Thai understanding which focuses almost exclusively on the future results (without paying attention to the mind state in the present moment). Both of these are aspects of kamma-vipaka, it is just a matter of emphasis.